3 ms·
By that logic, with those numbers (and if 1M is the total globally), then we “lose” almost as badly to the seasonal flu, every year. I’m not saying we shouldn’
by guscost 7y ago
By that logic, with those numbers (and if 1M is the total globally), then we “lose” almost as badly to the seasonal flu, every year.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about deadly illnesses. But the world is a dangerous place, and we’ve been pretty bad about changing that, historically.
Also, if we ruin 5 million lives to save (some percent of) 1 million, is that worth it? How about ruining 50 million lives? We can save lives with drastic measures, but drastic measures will have bad consequences too, and it seems like nobody has any perspective on that.
- scrollaway 7y agoWhat's the name of this fallacy? 1. "New thing X puts us at risk of losing Y lives every day." 2. "We lose Y lives to car accidents every day". 3. "Ergo, X is harmless!" You now have 2Y lives lost every day.
- guscost 7y agoThat’s not even close to what I’m saying. How did you read my comment and understand it as that??